I would doubt a three year old has the ability to make a tulpa, more likely it was an imaginary friend.

Explain why you doubt a three year old is incapable of making a tulpa. Ideally, this explanation would be in the form of:"In order to make a tulpa, one must be able to...""In order to make a tulpa, one must possess..."

Alternatively, you could also try:"The differences between an imaginary friend and a tulpa are..."

Quote

That is what tulpamancers call a "Servitor" AKA, a non-sentient tulpa who only can respond, not ask.

This is what rational people call 'talking to one's self internally in order to help organize thoughts, concepts, and ideas'.

Quote

Surprisingly enough, while playing with Alexis can be fun, it is also particularly hard to do.

Why is it difficult?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I would doubt a three year old has the ability to make a tulpa, more likely it was an imaginary friend.

Explain why you doubt a three year old is incapable of making a tulpa. Ideally, this explanation would be in the form of:"In order to make a tulpa, one must be able to...concentrate immensely.""In order to make a tulpa, one must possess...good design skills."

These tend to help, but for all i know, a 3 year old can make a tulpa, but is unlikely.

Alternatively, you could also try:"The differences between an imaginary friend and a tulpa are..."

Quote

That is what tulpamancers call a "Servitor" AKA, a non-sentient tulpa who only can respond, not ask.

This is what rational people call 'talking to one's self internally in order to help organize thoughts, concepts, and ideas'.

The quote did state that the voice answered by itself, thus not being normal self talk.

Quote

Surprisingly enough, while playing with Alexis can be fun, it is also particularly hard to do.

Why is it difficult?

Sometimes i find it hard to concentrate, at other times Alexis seems to be hibernating, sometimes she doesn't want to and instead just wants to be worked on.

So in your opinion, anything that exists in the mind, even the thought of Darth Vader equates to reality?

Well, yes, the thought of Darth Vader exists in reality. But it is a thought about the fictional entity that is the dark lord of the Sith and has excellent control of the Force.

So I certainly do not deny you the reality of your thoughts that this 'tulpa' is a distinct entity. I question the reality of the tulpa as a distinct entity.

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

For starters, Alexis looks like my avatar, and obviously i am not a pony.

Yeah. Sure you're not.

Oddly enough i sense sarcasm here...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

One of the tests to see if things are living is whether they reproduce. Do tulpa make other tulpa?

I wouldn't say a tulpa is alive, unless you count the creator's body as well.But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

If they can reproduce with or without the assent of the host this implies that tulpa are parasitic or, given that these beings are sentient, possibly malevolent

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

What you're talking about is that tulpa do not possess a corporeal form outside of yourself, but I would still contend that you are saying that a tulpa does exist as a part of reality. In the same way that you exist as a part of reality - the 'you' we're referring to is your person, which is above and beyond simply your biology or your corporeal form. You are your personality, your thoughts, your feelings. That's what I mean by 'exist in reality'.

What I am questioning is that this 'tulpa' actually possesses an independent personality, independent thoughts, and independent feelings, and that you willfully instantiated such an entity.

However, while thinking through some of this a tangential question has arisen in my head:I'm uncertain if it's possible for you to destroy this tulpa, but since we're in the world of hypotheticals we'll just assume that it is possible.Would it be morally wrong for you to destroy Alexis? If so, what is the moral transgression?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

But according to some people, tulpae can make more tulpae. I am not sure if it needs the creators help or not.Lastly, due to how long it takes to make a tulpa, i can only assume that a tulpa made tulpa would take perhaps years.

If they can reproduce with or without the assent of the host this implies that tulpa are parasitic or, given that these beings are sentient, possibly malevolent

*sigh* Lets get this straight...again...TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

Please understand that i am not saying tulpae are real in the sense of external reality, like a dog or a table. I am saying tulpae are existent mentally, like mind talk and imaginary friends. (That is, on the same realm, do not comprehend this as me saying tulpae ARE imaginary friends.)

What you're talking about is that tulpa do not possess a corporeal form outside of yourself, but I would still contend that you are saying that a tulpa does exist as a part of reality. In the same way that you exist as a part of reality - the 'you' we're referring to is your person, which is above and beyond simply your biology or your corporeal form. You are your personality, your thoughts, your feelings. That's what I mean by 'exist in reality'.

To put bluntly a tulpa would be similar to a person, just without the physical part, just a mental emulation.

What I am questioning is that this 'tulpa' actually possesses an independent personality, independent thoughts, and independent feelings, and that you willfully instantiated such an entity.

Then yes, a tulpa "exists" in reality.

However, while thinking through some of this a tangential question has arisen in my head:I'm uncertain if it's possible for you to destroy this tulpa, but since we're in the world of hypotheticals we'll just assume that it is possible.Would it be morally wrong for you to destroy Alexis? If so, what is the moral transgression?

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 09:57:39 AM by Angus and Alexis »

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

*sigh* Lets get this straight...again...TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically,

*sigh* Lets get this straight...again...TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically,

so you have to progamme them to reproduce

Generally yes, often it can be as simple as saying "you can now do "X" " so programming them is not necessary, tulpae dislike being altered.

that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.

would a sentient self-replicating machine not be alive?

It would fit the needed criteria, but would lack the biological part...

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions. First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind. Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions. First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind. Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

A tulpa generally cannot be "poofed away" like an imaginary friend, it takes a long time.As for morals, i cannot make up my mind...while she is indeed just a part of my mind, we have also had some fun times together, i do not think it would be right to destroy her without a justified reason.

Frankly I'm unconvinced that you believe a tulpa to be an independent entity with independent thoughts, feelings, and emotions. First you readily admit that 'she' is indeed just a part of your mind. Secondly, can you make up your mind as to whether or not it would be moral to destroy, say, your next door neighbor?

*sarcasm on*Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.Also, i never said they are independent, tulpae rely on their creators to keep them functional, via talking to them, working on them, etc.They do however have their own feeling and such.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

I wanted to single this out, because I feel that there's an important point being missed here. Why would a second (or third, or fourth...) personality not also be a "separate process" within the brain?

It differs from MPD by being a separate process entirely, while MPD is simply several different personalities.

I wanted to single this out, because I feel that there's an important point being missed here. Why would a second (or third, or fourth...) personality not also be a "separate process" within the brain?

While they would be different processes, they would only contain a personality, not an entire tulpa.Hence the difference.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

*sarcasm on*Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...

Then why wasn't the answer so obvious in regards to a tulpa? Your tulpa has it's own feelings, emotions, personality, etc. Feelings, emotions, and personality that are not you. Shouldn't that really have been enough information for you to readily say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy a tulpa' in the same way you'd say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy my neighbor'.

Quote

Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.

Alrighty...computing analogy time. Maybe we can get on the same page that way.

Let's go with your brain being the equivalent of a computer. You're rockin' an brand spankin' new Haswell i7 with all of the trimmings.

Now this computer is running a host OS of some kind. It's really nothing more than a hypervisor - it's got some capabilities to talk to some of the low-level hardware, and runs a copy of VirtualBox or VMware or whatever. Now, there is at least 1 virtual machine, running AngusOS (you). AngusOS has a few different programs and applications running on it, like the KDE desktop, drivers for an NVidia GPU, drivers for a SoundBlaster 16 (because you're old-skool and badass), several cron jobs that process incoming data and output some type of response, etc.

The totality of software that is AngusOS is an independent entity. AngusOS will run the same way regardless of whether it is running on this hypervisor, a different hypervisor, your i7, someone else's i5 or A10-5750M, etc.

Now, as I understand it, you are claiming that a second virtual machine running AlexisOS exists and is running in the same hypervisor that AngusOS is running. AlexisOS has it's own set of programs...maybe it's running the Xfce desktop, using drivers for an Intel GPU, drivers for a Turtle Beach sound card (because AlexisOS is also old-skool but in a completely different way), a different set of cron jobs, etc.

The programs running in AngusOS and AlexisOS comprise feelings, emotions, and personality.

Is this analogy to tulpa valid?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

*sarcasm on*Sure, to hell with my neighbors, why not nuke them from orbit to make sure?*sarcasm off*

Come on, what would any non-murderous person do to their neighbors?...

Then why wasn't the answer so obvious in regards to a tulpa? Your tulpa has it's own feelings, emotions, personality, etc. Feelings, emotions, and personality that are not you. Shouldn't that really have been enough information for you to readily say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy a tulpa' in the same way you'd say 'in general, it would be immoral to destroy my neighbor'.

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

Quote

Also, read up on parallel processing, allows 2 things to run in one package.

Alrighty...computing analogy time. Maybe we can get on the same page that way.

Let's go with your brain being the equivalent of a computer. You're rockin' an brand spankin' new Haswell i7 with all of the trimmings.

Now this computer is running a host OS of some kind. It's really nothing more than a hypervisor - it's got some capabilities to talk to some of the low-level hardware, and runs a copy of VirtualBox or VMware or whatever. Now, there is at least 1 virtual machine, running AngusOS (you). AngusOS has a few different programs and applications running on it, like the KDE desktop, drivers for an NVidia GPU, drivers for a SoundBlaster 16 (because you're old-skool and badass), several cron jobs that process incoming data and output some type of response, etc.

The totality of software that is AngusOS is an independent entity. AngusOS will run the same way regardless of whether it is running on this hypervisor, a different hypervisor, your i7, someone else's i5 or A10-5750M, etc.

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*

Now, as I understand it, you are claiming that a second virtual machine running AlexisOS exists and is running in the same hypervisor that AngusOS is running. AlexisOS has it's own set of programs...maybe it's running the Xfce desktop, using drivers for an Intel GPU, drivers for a Turtle Beach sound card (because AlexisOS is also old-skool but in a completely different way), a different set of cron jobs, etc.

Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.

The programs running in AngusOS and AlexisOS comprise feelings, emotions, and personality.

Is this analogy to tulpa valid?

Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

So...killing a homeless person who has no relationships - not a problem? If that is also a moral failing, why so?

Quote

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

So I guess I'm getting more confused at this point. You seem to be leaning towards your biology (hardware) being an essential part of who you are. If that's the case, and the tulpa 'runs' on your exact biology (hardware), in what way is a tulpa not merely an extension of you? I mean, that, coupled with:

Quote

*sigh* Lets get this straight...again...TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...

Alexis can't do anything without your consent.Alexis' traits are entirely dependent on you.Alexis must run on the same biology as you.Alexis exists because you made her exist.It's just becoming increasingly difficult ascertaining exactly how a 'Alexis' isn't just 'you'.

Ultimately, though, I think the main problem here is that you simply haven't thought this whole thing through yourself. Sentences such as:

Quote

Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

seem to indicate that you're trying to answer questions on the fly without serious thought behind the answers. Seriously - there are only 11 words that happen between you declaring that a tulpa doesn't gain anything and the tulpa does gain something.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Because if you kill your neighbor, many others will care, if you dissolve a tulpa, only you should care. Not that i am saying your should dissolve tulpae, but the option is there...just in case...

So...killing a homeless person who has no relationships - not a problem? If that is also a moral failing, why so?

Damn, ii dug myself in a hole...Hmm...I would say that being that i am against just dissolving tulpae, the option should only be used in emergencies.

Quote

Not really, the processor would determine its speed, its stability ,etc. *nitpicking*Sounds right, but the tulpa still uses the same brain, so the hardware would need to be the same, the software could change however.Seems alright, not particularly the best computer guy out there, but the analogy seems fitting.

So I guess I'm getting more confused at this point. You seem to be leaning towards your biology (hardware) being an essential part of who you are. If that's the case, and the tulpa 'runs' on your exact biology (hardware), in what way is a tulpa not merely an extension of you? I mean, that, coupled with:

I find that my biology makes me unique, yes.I am not sure how that equates to a tulpa being an extension of you however.

Quote

*sigh* Lets get this straight...again...TULPAE CAN'T DO THINGS UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST GIVEN THE ABILITY TO DO SO *consent* (generally).You can give a tulpa the ability to make more, then it can make them automatically, although it is also possible that a tulpa can gain the power to do so automatically, they are kind of iffy.And tulpae are not alive, that is like saying a sentient computer is alive, even if it can produce more computers.EDIT: tulpae are as nice or mean as you make them, or as influences makes them. If a tulpa is evil, your probably going to want to dissolve it...asap...

Alexis can't do anything without your consent.Alexis' traits are entirely dependent on you.Alexis must run on the same biology as you.Alexis exists because you made her exist.It's just becoming increasingly difficult ascertaining exactly how a 'Alexis' isn't just 'you'.

Wrong, i did state that tulpae are capable of doing things themselves, and often start doing so automatically without consent. Secondly, am i a pony? (Y/N), is my personality somehow not my own? (Y/N), do i lack a physical presence? (Y/N), etc. Lastly, as i have said before, tulpae are not entirely separate, please stop bringing it up.

Ultimately, though, I think the main problem here is that you simply haven't thought this whole thing through yourself. Sentences such as:

Quote

Also, a tulpa is not a parasite, as the tulpa is not gaining anything, tulpae are more like a mutual relationship, with both parties gaining a bit from the other.

seem to indicate that you're trying to answer questions on the fly without serious thought behind the answers. Seriously - there are only 11 words that happen between you declaring that a tulpa doesn't gain anything and the tulpa does gain something.

Yeah, my wording was wrong (i guess that happens when its late and im tired...), i think i was trying to point out that tulpae don't get everything, thus not a parasite.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting. Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating. You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

Quote

What?...

Now...

Your formatting needs work. In the Dead Zone (last group in the forum index), there's an topic called Test Area. Practice a bit in there until you get the hang of it, your just misplacing a few keystrokes that will make a big difference if you get them in the right places.

There's a tutorial on quoting as well in the top group, complete with screen shots on exactly how to do it right. It really will help if you can get it down - I'm assuming that jdawg has been going through your posts and correcting the formatting in order to reply to them.

Notice that the above quotes from your post looks different than the way you posted it? That's what he's talking about.

Logged

“Be skeptical. But when you get proof, accept proof.” –Michael Specter

Angus and Alexis, please work on your quoting. Fixing it nearly every time I respond to you is getting a little frustrating. You'll get the hang of it; just make liberal use of the 'Preview' button.

Quote

What?...Now...

Your formatting needs work. In the Dead Zone (last group in the forum index), there's an topic called Test Area. Practice a bit in there until you get the hang of it, your just misplacing a few keystrokes that will make a big difference if you get them in the right places.

There's a tutorial on quoting as well in the top group, complete with screen shots on exactly how to do it right. It really will help if you can get it down - I'm assuming that jdawg has been going through your posts and correcting the formatting in order to reply to them.

Notice that the above quotes from your post looks different than the way you posted it? That's what he's talking about.

They look fine to me, what issue is present?EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 11:07:29 PM by Angus and Alexis »

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

They look fine to me, what issue is present?EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

In replying to another's post, your replies shouldn't be enclosed as part of the quote (the shaded blocks), but apart. As my reply here is distinct from my copy of your post above. Bolding your replies is better than nothing, but setting them apart (outside quotes entirely) makes it even clearer who is replying to whom. Hope that helps.

It took me awhile to get the hang of it too, but it isn't very hard. All we have to judge each other here with are our words, so clearly formatting replies shows a measure of courtesy and respect.

Please note that I don't mean I think you've been disrespectful, just that learning to format according to forum standards is a further sign of courtesy.

And don't assign too much significance to Darwins, positive or negative. The use of them varies quite a bit by forum members. I tend to hand out pluses relatively freely (I awarded two in the last hour or so) and negatives hardly ever. Others use them more sparingly.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

They look fine to me, what issue is present?EDIT: just realised i got a -1 "darwin" Woot.

In replying to another's post, your replies shouldn't be enclosed as part of the quote (the shaded blocks), but apart. As my reply here is distinct from my copy of your post above. Bolding your replies is better than nothing, but setting them apart (outside quotes entirely) makes it even clearer who is replying to whom. Hope that helps.

It took me awhile to get the hang of it too, but it isn't very hard. All we have to judge each other here with are our words, so clearly formatting replies shows a measure of courtesy and respect.

Please note that I don't mean I think you've been disrespectful, just that learning to format according to forum standards is a further sign of courtesy.

And don't assign too much significance to Darwins, positive or negative. The use of them varies quite a bit by forum members. I tend to hand out pluses relatively freely (I awarded two in the last hour or so) and negatives hardly ever. Others use them more sparingly.

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Not a very polite attitude for a newcomer. If you're really in that much of a hurry, then just post one or two replies at a go; there's no forum rule that states you have to answer every last question in every post. And again, once you get the hang of it, formatting clearly really doesn't take much effort.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2013, 12:08:29 AM by wright »

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Well, let me put it this way. You have already been told by one Mod - Greybeard - to use the quote function correctly. Now I - also in my mod capacity - am telling you again. You will use the quote function correctly, please. That means separating out your responses, NOT putting them in bold inside the quoted text. (In case you weren't aware, when addressed in green bold text, it means we are acting in our Moderator capacity.

The quoting tutorial can be found here - please review it before posting please.

Ehh, when it comes to answering several questions at once, i cant be bothered having to quote each one...efficiency ftw.

Well, let me put it this way. You have already been told by one Mod - Greybeard - to use the quote function correctly. Now I - also in my mod capacity - am telling you again. You will use the quote function correctly, please. That means separating out your responses, NOT putting them in bold inside the quoted text. (In case you weren't aware, when addressed in green bold text, it means we are acting in our Moderator capacity.

The quoting tutorial can be found here - please review it before posting please.

I have found no posts where Greybeard warned me to quote.But, as you wish, i will quote correctly now.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

He didn't warn you - he asked you to learn how to use quotes. Since it was inside a quote block, I can see why you might have missed it.

Ahh, okay then, that is likely why i missed it.

Anyway, enough derailment with how quotes should be made.

Any other questions.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

I've read this thread in it's entirety twice now, and I still don't see the difference between forming a tulpa and inducing a type of controlled auditory and visual Schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia normally cannot be disabled, and normally cannot be destroyed without external help.

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.